Guest Quentin Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Vista 64 SP1, fully patched. When UAC kicks in, it's a real pain. Not that it kicks in but the way it kicks in. The screen dims and the system is unresponsive for a couple of seconds - just long enough for me to notice and then a bit longer. Then the UAC prompt comes up. I'd like to remove the screen dimming and change it to the sort of warning prompt you get when you try to run an ActiveX control or Java applet. Can I do this? Note that I don't want to disable UAC just modify the behaviour. -- qts Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 "Quentin" <msfeedback@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in message news:EF98472E-3EF9-4F8D-91A6-18A12EFEB5FC@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Vista 64 SP1, fully patched. > > When UAC kicks in, it's a real pain. Not that it kicks in but the way it > kicks in. The screen dims and the system is unresponsive for a couple of > seconds - just long enough for me to notice and then a bit longer. Then > the > UAC prompt comes up. I'd like to remove the screen dimming and change it > to > the sort of warning prompt you get when you try to run an ActiveX control > or > Java applet. Can I do this? > > Note that I don't want to disable UAC just modify the behaviour. ></span> I think you're out of luck. Quote
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:27:02 -0700, Quentin <msfeedback@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Note that I don't want to disable UAC just modify the behaviour.</span> I think you're up sh creek without a paddle. Quote
Guest midway64 Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 XdN Tweaker has an option for turning Secure Desktop off (what the "blackness" is called). It works in both 32 and 64 bit flavors and you can get it here: http://http://xenomorph.net/?page_id=336 There is also a way of doing it by modifying a registry entry but this is easier. -- midway64 [Desktop] Acer Aspire M5620 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz | 4GB RAM | Vista64 HP SP1 [Laptop] Acer Aspire 5570z | Intel Pentium Dual Core T2080 1.76GHz | 2GB RAM | Vista32 HP SP1 Quote
Guest Kerry Brown Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 That's called "Secure Desktop" and it can be disabled. http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/117448-u...out-screen.html -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ "Quentin" <msfeedback@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in message news:EF98472E-3EF9-4F8D-91A6-18A12EFEB5FC@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Vista 64 SP1, fully patched. > > When UAC kicks in, it's a real pain. Not that it kicks in but the way it > kicks in. The screen dims and the system is unresponsive for a couple of > seconds - just long enough for me to notice and then a bit longer. Then > the > UAC prompt comes up. I'd like to remove the screen dimming and change it > to > the sort of warning prompt you get when you try to run an ActiveX control > or > Java applet. Can I do this? > > Note that I don't want to disable UAC just modify the behaviour. > > > -- > > qts > </span> Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "Quentin" <msfeedback@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in message news:EF98472E-3EF9-4F8D-91A6-18A12EFEB5FC@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Vista 64 SP1, fully patched. > > When UAC kicks in, it's a real pain. Not that it kicks in but the way it > kicks in. The screen dims and the system is unresponsive for a couple of > seconds - just long enough for me to notice and then a bit longer. Then > the > UAC prompt comes up. I'd like to remove the screen dimming and change it > to > the sort of warning prompt you get when you try to run an ActiveX control > or > Java applet. Can I do this? > > Note that I don't want to disable UAC just modify the behaviour.</span> It takes a snapshot of your current screen, darkens it, and switches to a secure desktop with the darkened screenshot as background. Then it displays the prompt. It is not just fluff, it is a security measure. You are probably not able to change this easily. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "midway64" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message news:e594a2c1ef466da2012896db5efb161e@nntp-gateway.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > XdN Tweaker has an option for turning Secure Desktop off (what the > "blackness" is called). It works in both 32 and 64 bit flavors and you > can get it here: > > http://http://xenomorph.net/?page_id=336 > > There is also a way of doing it by modifying a registry entry but this > is easier. > ></span> Yeah, that's a nice set of tools there. I like the UAC black screen disable. It's a keeper, thanks. style_emoticons/ Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message news:%232Wtsu1$IHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > > "midway64" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message > news:e594a2c1ef466da2012896db5efb161e@nntp-gateway.com...<span style="color:green"> >> >> XdN Tweaker has an option for turning Secure Desktop off (what the >> "blackness" is called). It works in both 32 and 64 bit flavors and you >> can get it here: >> >> http://http://xenomorph.net/?page_id=336 >> >> There is also a way of doing it by modifying a registry entry but this >> is easier. >> >></span> > > Yeah, that's a nice set of tools there. I like the UAC black screen > disable. > > It's a keeper, thanks. style_emoticons/</span> Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC for any malware program smart enough to take advantage of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users take this option - I'm sure some will be written. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message news:%23ReDoD5$IHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > > "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message > news:%232Wtsu1$IHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> >> "midway64" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message >> news:e594a2c1ef466da2012896db5efb161e@nntp-gateway.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> >>> XdN Tweaker has an option for turning Secure Desktop off (what the >>> "blackness" is called). It works in both 32 and 64 bit flavors and you >>> can get it here: >>> >>> http://http://xenomorph.net/?page_id=336 >>> >>> There is also a way of doing it by modifying a registry entry but this >>> is easier. >>> >>></span> >> >> Yeah, that's a nice set of tools there. I like the UAC black screen >> disable. >> >> It's a keeper, thanks. style_emoticons/</span> > > Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt > doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC > for any malware program smart enough to take advantage > of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware > program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users > take this option - I'm sure some will be written. > ></span> You need to provide some proof here that disabling that black screen is disabling the security functionality you speak about. Quote
Guest Kerry Brown Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message news:%23%23%23y4B7$IHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... <snipped> <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt >> doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC >> for any malware program smart enough to take advantage >> of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware >> program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users >> take this option - I'm sure some will be written. >> >></span> > You need to provide some proof here that disabling that black screen is > disabling the security functionality you speak about. > ></span> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709628.aspx Here's the relevant excerpt: "Securing the Elevation Prompt The elevation process is further secured by directing the prompt to the secure desktop. The consent and credential prompts are displayed on the secure desktop by default in Windows Vista. Only Windows processes can access the secure desktop. In addition to the recommendations for administrators and standard users, Microsoft also strongly recommends that the User Account Control: Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for elevation setting should be kept enabled for higher levels of security. When an executable requests elevation, the interactive desktop (also called the user desktop) is switched to the secure desktop. The secure desktop renders an alpha-blended bitmap of the user desktop and displays a highlighted elevation prompt and corresponding calling application window. When the user clicks Continue or Cancel, the desktop switches back to the user desktop. It is worthwhile to note that malware can paint over the interactive desktop and present an imitation of the secure desktop, but when the setting is set to prompt for approval the malware does not gain elevation should the user be tricked into clicking Continue on the imitation. If the setting is set to prompt for credentials, malware imitating the credential prompt may be able to gather the credentials from the user. Note that this does also does not gain malware elevated privilege and that the system has other protections that mitigate malware from automated driving of user interface even with a harvested password." -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c a m> wrote in message news:ehx7iJ7$IHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message > news:%23%23%23y4B7$IHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > <snipped> ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt >>> doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC >>> for any malware program smart enough to take advantage >>> of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware >>> program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users >>> take this option - I'm sure some will be written. >>> >>></span> >> You need to provide some proof here that disabling that black screen is >> disabling the security functionality you speak about. >> >></span> > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709628.aspx ></span> Yeah ok, I see it and see the functionality. However, that little utility program has some other nice features not that disable Black on UAC is a bad feature either. Quote
Guest Kerry Brown Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message news:e0aMye7$IHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c a m> wrote in message > news:ehx7iJ7$IHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message >> news:%23%23%23y4B7$IHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> <snipped> >><span style="color:darkred"> >>>> Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt >>>> doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC >>>> for any malware program smart enough to take advantage >>>> of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware >>>> program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users >>>> take this option - I'm sure some will be written. >>>> >>>> >>> You need to provide some proof here that disabling that black screen is >>> disabling the security functionality you speak about. >>> >>></span> >> >> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709628.aspx >></span> > > Yeah ok, I see it and see the functionality. However, that little utility > program has some other nice features not that disable Black on UAC is a > bad feature either. ></span> Disabling the secure desktop isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you understand the implications of doing so. It is automatically disabled when you RDP to a Vista box for instance. As the secure desktop is enabled by default it's very unlikely malware would be coded to look to see if it was disabled and take advantage of that fact. What percentage of users would be able to figure out that it could be disabled and then figure out how to do it? How many of those would just say "Interesting, but so what" then leave it enabled? Although you would be relying on security by obscurity I think it's very unlikely disabling secure desktop would actually cause you any harm. Security is all about assessing risk and managing a balance between mitigating that risk and performing a task without too many hurdles. For me the increased security of secure desktop more than makes up for the slight inconvenience it causes. UAC gives us a few more tools to help manage that balance. All of the settings that the UAC tweak tools provide were built into Vista to help people manage UAC. I do agree that some of them give you nice GUI way to do it though. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message news:%23%23%23y4B7$IHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > > "FromTheRafters" <erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message > news:%23ReDoD5$IHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> >> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message >> news:%232Wtsu1$IHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> >>> "midway64" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message >>> news:e594a2c1ef466da2012896db5efb161e@nntp-gateway.com... >>>> >>>> XdN Tweaker has an option for turning Secure Desktop off (what the >>>> "blackness" is called). It works in both 32 and 64 bit flavors and you >>>> can get it here: >>>> >>>> http://http://xenomorph.net/?page_id=336 >>>> >>>> There is also a way of doing it by modifying a registry entry but this >>>> is easier. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, that's a nice set of tools there. I like the UAC black screen >>> disable. >>> >>> It's a keeper, thanks. style_emoticons/</span> >> >> Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt >> doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC >> for any malware program smart enough to take advantage >> of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware >> program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users >> take this option - I'm sure some will be written. >> >></span> > You need to provide some proof here that disabling that black screen is > disabling the security functionality you speak about.</span> All of the official documentation I have read about UAC funtionality indicates that this is so. As far as whether or not it is a good idea to circumvent this part of UAC - some users don't need UAC at all and even that extreme is okay with me. They can enable and unhide the most privileged user account and do without it, but it should be an informed decision. Quote
Guest Quentin Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Bother. At least, is there any way of making it faster? If the d mn thing came up straightaway, it would be much less of a bother. -- qts "FromTheRafters" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > > "Quentin" <msfeedback@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in message > news:EF98472E-3EF9-4F8D-91A6-18A12EFEB5FC@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> > > Vista 64 SP1, fully patched. > > > > When UAC kicks in, it's a real pain. Not that it kicks in but the way it > > kicks in. The screen dims and the system is unresponsive for a couple of > > seconds - just long enough for me to notice and then a bit longer. Then > > the > > UAC prompt comes up. I'd like to remove the screen dimming and change it > > to > > the sort of warning prompt you get when you try to run an ActiveX control > > or > > Java applet. Can I do this? > > > > Note that I don't want to disable UAC just modify the behaviour.</span> > > It takes a snapshot of your current screen, darkens it, and switches > to a secure desktop with the darkened screenshot as background. > Then it displays the prompt. It is not just fluff, it is a security measure. > > You are probably not able to change this easily. > > > </span> Quote
Guest Junk Yard Dog Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Quentin wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > Bother. At least, is there any way of making it faster? If the d mn thing > came up straightaway, it would be much less of a bother. > </span> Why don't you read the rest of the threads in this posts? Quote
Guest Flight Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c a m> schreef in bericht news:#OM4F07$IHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message > news:e0aMye7$IHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> >> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c a m> wrote in message >> news:ehx7iJ7$IHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message >>> news:%23%23%23y4B7$IHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >>> <snipped> >>> >>>>> Disabling the secure desktop feature of the UAC prompt >>>>> doesn't exactly "optimize" UAC - in fact it disables UAC >>>>> for any malware program smart enough to take advantage >>>>> of that change. Sure, maybe it is unlikely that a malware >>>>> program exists that can do this, but if enough Vista users >>>>> take this option - I'm sure some will be written. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You need to provide some proof here that disabling that black screen is >>>> disabling the security functionality you speak about. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709628.aspx >>></span> >> >> Yeah ok, I see it and see the functionality. However, that little utility >> program has some other nice features not that disable Black on UAC is a >> bad feature either. >></span> > > > Disabling the secure desktop isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you > understand the implications of doing so. It is automatically disabled when > you RDP to a Vista box for instance. > > As the secure desktop is enabled by default it's very unlikely malware > would be coded to look to see if it was disabled and take advantage of > that fact. What percentage of users would be able to figure out that it > could be disabled and then figure out how to do it? How many of those > would just say "Interesting, but so what" then leave it enabled? Although > you would be relying on security by obscurity I think it's very unlikely > disabling secure desktop would actually cause you any harm. Security is > all about assessing risk and managing a balance between mitigating that > risk and performing a task without too many hurdles. For me the increased > security of secure desktop more than makes up for the slight inconvenience > it causes. > > UAC gives us a few more tools to help manage that balance. All of the > settings that the UAC tweak tools provide were built into Vista to help > people manage UAC. I do agree that some of them give you nice GUI way to > do it though. > > -- > Kerry Brown > MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration > http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ > http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ > > > ></span> You know, many users would not even think of disabling UAC if it had one extra option: to remember what was accepted. Just like the way good firewalls do. But now, if you have to use an application that has to be checked by the UAC, and you have to use it many times a day, then you have to tell the UAC every time again that it is OK. That's the ONLY reason that users wish to disable the UAC. You can state that this would be less secure but then I ask: what's worse, using UAC with such a function, of not using UAC at all? Here I see a tendency that I found in other cases too: Microsoft seems to think that all users are stupid idiots. The simplest things are "secured" with questions like: are you sure you want that? I always think then: yeah, I am not an idiot, stupid! Now you get the situation that users click Yes without even reading it, because it is overused. That's why I started to use Buzoff (basta computing) to have it automatically done in cases where this question is simply too stupid to think about. If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the real security issues would be much more accepted. Quote
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:24:50 +0200, "Flight" <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the >real security issues would be much more accepted. </span> The "real reason" for UAC is supposeldly to nudge software developers to write Vista-compatible apps, not to burden users with a barrage of prompts. Yeah, riiiiiiiiight. Quote
Guest Flight Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 "Paul Montgomery" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:i8ofa4p2mndjahr0ipf2tg7h643rpm7rv2@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:24:50 +0200, "Flight" > <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >>If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the >>real security issues would be much more accepted.</span> > > The "real reason" for UAC is supposeldly to nudge software developers > to write Vista-compatible apps, not to burden users with a barrage of > prompts. > > Yeah, riiiiiiiiight.</span> Whatever reason they give, it is the user who gets headaches of this. They refuse to look from our point of view. Quote
Guest Flight Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 "Junk Yard Dog" <JunkYard@Dog.com> schreef in bericht news:O0MMg29$IHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Quentin wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> Bother. At least, is there any way of making it faster? If the d mn thing >> came up straightaway, it would be much less of a bother. >></span> > > Why don't you read the rest of the threads in this posts?</span> Exact. Looks like we have to do all the work for him. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 "Flight" <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote in message >><span style="color:blue"> > You know, many users would not even think of disabling UAC if it had one > extra option: to remember what was accepted. Just like the way good > firewalls do. But now, if you have to use an application that has to be > checked by the UAC, and you have to use it many times a day, then you > have to tell the UAC every time again that it is OK. That's the ONLY > reason that users wish to disable the UAC. ></span> I can't go with that: 1)Aa personal FW/personal packet filter is not a firewall. 2) The Application Control in personal FW(s)/packet filters has no business trying to control applications running on the machine, because that can easily be defeated, nothing but snake-oil in the solution. 3) If UAC accepted a remembered prompt for approval for an actual malware solution ok-ing it, then it's always going to be run with no challenge, just like Application Control in PFW(s) -- snake-oil. <span style="color:blue"> > You can state that this would be less secure but then I ask: what's worse, > using UAC with such a function, of not using UAC at all? Here I see a > tendency that I found in other cases too: Microsoft seems to think that > all users are stupid idiots. The simplest things are "secured" with > questions like: are you sure you want that? I always think then: yeah, I > am not an idiot, stupid! Now you get the situation that users click Yes > without even reading it, because it is overused. That's why I started to > use Buzoff (basta computing) to have it automatically done in cases where > this question is simply too stupid to think about.</span> No, you miss a key point of UAC. Since Admin is locked down to Standard user with two secuirty tokens representing Full Admin Rights and Standard Admin rights (discussed in the link below), when a situation arises that promps for Full Admin rtghts such as malware about to be installed, then the user as a signal that something may be wrong. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709691.aspx Now, take the examples in the link below of a user clicking on something as Full Admin rights running on Win NT, Win 2k, or Win XP. What's going going to happen? I'll tell you. The machine is going to be compromised, with a user sitting there clicking with Full Admin rights. As opposed to Vista with UAC enabled, Admin is locked down to Standard user, and Admin user is prompted/challenged for Full Admin rights to do it, which they can see something is about to happen. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Hundreds...et-Infected-Ad/ You can apply the same principles above when an Admin user is clicking on an unknown email attachment with malware in it that wants to install itself on the machine. <span style="color:blue"> > > If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the > real security issues would be much more accepted.</span> They are treating users like normal people that will not practice safehex computing, and they will click on everything under the Sun not knowing that malware is about to install itself. With UAC enabled and they click, they got a chance of seeing that something may be wrong when prompted to allow or disallow or give that Admin User-id and PSW if the user is a Standard user with only a Standard user security token. I don't see this is really being any different than when a user has to give that Root Full Admin rights user-id and psw on Linux when root full admin rights are required. One doesn't have a ton of applications that require full admin rights to run. I think I have maybe 4 applications I use that use full admin rights in order to run. And I am not running those applications all the time, so I get very little prompts from UAC. The rest can run with Standard user rights. One doesn't get prompted when the application only needs Standard rights to run, unless you have Run As Administrator enabled on every application/program, you did it, and you are being prompted all over the place when you shouldn't be. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 "Flight" <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote in message news:eTMOALEAJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... [snip] <span style="color:blue"> > You know, many users would not even think of disabling UAC if it had one > extra option: to remember what was accepted. Just like the way good > firewalls do.</span> Yeah, that is a common complaint. <span style="color:blue"> > But now, if you have to use an application that has to be checked by the > UAC, and you have to use it many times a day, then you have to tell the > UAC every time again that it is OK. That's the ONLY reason that users wish > to disable the UAC.</span> Not the only reason, but it is high on the list. <span style="color:blue"> > You can state that this would be less secure but then I ask: what's worse, > using UAC with such a function, of not using UAC at all?</span> Almost equivalent in the long run. <span style="color:blue"> > Here I see a tendency that I found in other cases too: Microsoft seems to > think that all users are stupid idiots. The simplest things are "secured" > with questions like: are you sure you want that? I always think then: > yeah, I am not an idiot, stupid! Now you get the situation that users > click Yes without even reading it, because it is overused.</span> That is a stupid idiotic thing to do, so it seems Microsoft was right in the assessment you attributed to them. style_emoticons/) <span style="color:blue"> > That's why I started to use Buzoff (basta computing) to have it > automatically done in cases where this question is simply too stupid to > think about.</span> What an ugly hat (whoops) ... looks good on you though. style_emoticons// <span style="color:blue"> > If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the > real security issues would be much more accepted.</span> They tried that with previous versions, and what a mess it created. Now they make a more secure OS (default settings) and people complain - actually Vista can be made nearly equivalent to XP by user configurable settings. If you really don't need "hand holding" then by all means shut the feature off. The up side is that the newbies will be more secure and most of them won't have issues with UAC anyway. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 "Flight" <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote in message news:OiRgF5EAJHA.5660@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > > > "Junk Yard Dog" <JunkYard@Dog.com> schreef in bericht > news:O0MMg29$IHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> Quentin wrote:<span style="color:darkred"> >>> Bother. At least, is there any way of making it faster? If the d mn >>> thing came up straightaway, it would be much less of a bother. >>></span> >> >> Why don't you read the rest of the threads in this posts?</span> > > Exact. Looks like we have to do all the work for him.</span> Evidently, this feature causes some video adapters to switch more often than "normal" usage would. I sure wouldn't want too much of a delay in this process. Microsoft is attempting to address this issue and may offer some solution(s) in the future - so I hear. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 http://blogs.msdn.com/cjacks/archive/2008/...ac-prompts.aspx Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.